State v. Rhodes

1

State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Adam Aaron Rhodes, Appellant.

No. 23-0338

Supreme Court of Iowa

May 10, 2024

Submitted April 2, 2024

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, John M Wright (motion to dismiss) and Michael J. Schilling (trial) Judges.

The defendant appeals a conviction for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, arguing that his muzzleloader replica of an antique firearm is not a firearm within the meaning of Iowa Code section 724.26(1). Affirmed.

S.P DeVolder (argued) of the DeVolder Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Norwalk, and William L. Kutmus and Trever T. Hook of Kutmus, Pennington &Hook, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau (argued), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Waterman, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined.

OPINION

WATERMAN, JUSTICE.

In this appeal, we must determine whether a replica of an antique muzzleloader rifle qualifies as a "firearm" within the meaning of Iowa Code section 724.26(1) (2021), which prohibits felons from possessing a "firearm or offensive weapon." The defendant in this case is a convicted felon who used the muzzleloader rifle to kill a deer. He argues that because the Iowa Code does not define "firearm" and excludes such a muzzleloader from the statutory definition of "offensive weapon," and because federal law excludes such muzzleloaders from the federal definition of "firearm," he did not violate the Iowa statute. The State argues, and the district court agreed, that the defendant is guilty of possessing a "firearm" under the common meaning of that term and our precedent. We retained the defendant's appeal.

On our review, we agree with the district court and the State. The Iowa legislature declined to enact the federal definition of "firearm." Our precedents apply the common meaning of "firearm" that encompasses this muzzleloader rifle. The felon-in-possession law uses the disjunctive "or" to prohibit felons from possessing a "firearm or offensive weapon." Id. (emphasis added). The exemption for muzzleloaders from the statutory definition of "offensive weapons" permits law-abiding citizens to possess them but not other offensive weapons-such as machine guns or hand grenades. Felons, like this defendant, remain prohibited from possessing any firearm, including this one, even if it is not an offensive weapon. For the reasons further explained below, we affirm the district court's judgment.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

In 2004, Adam Rhodes was convicted of third-degree burglary under Iowa Code sections 713.1 and 713.6A(1) (2004), a class "D" felony. In December 2020, Rhodes purchased a Thompson/Center Impact .50 caliber in-line muzzleloader rifle from Dick's Sporting Goods in Des Moines County. Hunters using muzzleloaders enjoy longer deer hunting seasons in Iowa,^[1] and the purchase of such a muzzleloader does not require a federal background check. The record includes a photo of the muzzleloader Rhodes purchased:

(Image Omitted)

On October 19, 2021, during the muzzleloader hunting season, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources law enforcement team received multiple complaints about Rhodes killing a "big deer" and that something was just "not right." The next day, officers met with Rhodes, who admitted to killing a deer from his tree stand. Rhodes initially told the officers that he used a bow. The officers located the deer carcass and found a gunshot wound with a copper bullet "in the hide of the deer." The officers sent that part of the hide to a veterinarian who determined that "there were definitely pieces of lead or 'shrapnel' in the hide."

The officers obtained a search warrant on October 21 to examine the contents of Rhodes's cell phone and confiscate his rifle. They found text messages Rhodes sent his wife, including a photo of Rhodes sitting in a deer blind with the muzzle-loading rifle and admitting that he shot the deer with his muzzleloader.

The State charged Rhodes with knowingly possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of Iowa Code section 724.26(1) (2021)-Iowa's felon-in-possession statute. Rhodes did not contest that he was a felon, nor did he argue that he was not in possession of the muzzleloader rifle. Instead, Rhodes moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the weapon was a "replica" of an "antique firearm" and thus not a "firearm" under section 724.26(1).

The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing. Rhodes testified about his possession and ownership of the rifle. He also called an expert witness, Michael Anderson, who worked at an Iowa firearm dealership and served as a cavalry scout in the United States military for twenty years. Anderson is a certified National Rifle Association firearms instructor and teaches Iowa's permit-to-carry course. Anderson testified that Rhodes's rifle does not qualify as a firearm under federal or Iowa law and that the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives does not consider muzzle-loading rifles as firearms. He opined that Rhodes's rifle is not considered a firearm because it cannot be converted into a rifle or shotgun, it cannot be converted to shoot rimfire or centerfire cartridges, it is a replica of an early 1800s muzzle-loading rifle with an antique firing mechanism, and it can only be safely fired using black powder or an approved black powder substitute.

The prosecutor only asked one question of Anderson: "Does the Thompson/Center Impact have the ability to propel a projectile by explosive force?" Anderson responded, "Well, yes. That's what a muzzleloader does, yes, ma'am."

Both parties presented arguments to the district court. Rhodes contended that a replica of an antique firearm does not fall within the definition of a "firearm" under Iowa Code section 724.1, which does not define "firearm," while a replica of an antique firearm is excluded from the statutory definition of "offensive weapon." Rhodes reasoned that because the muzzleloader is excluded from the definition of "offensive weapon," it should not be included in the definition of a "firearm." The State argued that Rhodes was not charged with possessing an "offensive weapon" but instead a "firearm." According to the State, the term "firearm" includes a replica of an antique firearm that can propel a projectile using gunpowder.

The district court agreed with the State. The court found that the replica of an antique firearm is an "instrument used in the propulsion of shot, shell, or bullets by the action of gunpowder exploded within it." (Quoting Firearm, Black's Law Dictionary 761 (4th rev. ed. 1968).) "The Defendant wants this court to conclude the Defendant could have had no idea he was purchasing a firearm from Dick's Sporting Goods. The court cannot go to that extent."

A trial on the minutes commenced on August 22, 2022. The district court again heard arguments from both parties. The fighting issue remained whether the antique firearm constitutes a "firearm" under Iowa Code section 724.26(1).

On September 1, the district court entered judgment against Rhodes, finding him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Iowa Code section 724.26(1). The court determined that a "firearm" should be defined broadly to include "any instrument which will or is designed to discharge a projectile by the force of a chemical explosive such as gun powder." (Quoting Iowa State Bar Ass'n, Iowa Criminal Jury Instruction 2400.8 (2022).) The court relied, in part, on the purpose of section 724.26, which is "both to protect the public and to impose punishment." (Quoting State v. Olsen, 848 N.W.2d 363, 368 (Iowa 2014).) The district court reasoned, "To adopt the Defendant's position would contravene the express purpose of the statute because persons convicted of a felony could lawfully possess an instrument which will or is designed to discharge a projectile by the force of a chemical explosive such as gun powder."

The district court also rejected several affirmative defenses raised by Rhodes, most notably a void for vagueness constitutional challenge. The court stated, "[W]hen Iowa Code Section 724.1 and Section 724.26 are read together, the sweep of the prohibition against firearm possession is clear. There is a difference between possession of a firearm and possession of an offensive weapon." The court determined that an individual of ordinary intelligence would understand that "firearm" encompasses an instrument that discharges a projectile that was used to kill a deer.

The district court imposed a suspended fine and sentence, placing Rhodes on probation for a period not to exceed five years. Rhodes appealed his conviction, and we retained the case.

II. Standard of Review

We review statutory interpretation questions and rulings on motions to dismiss a charge in a trial information for correction of errors at law. State v. Middlekauff, 974 N.W.2d 781, 790 (Iowa 2022). We review constitutional rulings de novo. Id. at 791. We review rulings on the sufficiency of evidence for correction of errors at law. State v. Ramirez, 895 N.W.2d 884, 890 (Iowa 2017).

III. Analysis.

The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Thompson/Center Impact .50 caliber in-line muzzleloader rifle is a "firearm" within the meaning of Iowa Code section 724.26(1). Rhodes admits he is a convicted felon and he used the rifle to kill a deer. Rhodes argues that we should interpret Iowa Code chapter 724 consistent with its federal counterparts: 18 U.S.C. §§ 921, 922(g), allowing felons to possess antique firearms. He also argues that because chapter 724 exempts muzzle-loading rifles from the definition of an "offensive weapon," we should not include muzzle-loading...